The structure of PLP’s response in the full document is as follows:

i. Introductory note on terminology: In our research and consultation to inform this response we identified that there is no shared understanding as to the type of regime that ‘fixed costs’ may indicate and/or what that may encompass.

ii. Judicial review: We explain why judicial review is a special case , both in principle and in practice. We give examples from our experience and provide some important context , including the current state of the legal aid t the tiLJackson’s Final Report in 2009 , and was conred in Chapter 7 of thsame).

iii. Fixed costs – applicability/desirability of any fixed cost model in judicial review. We consider the options in light of the evidence and conclude that the appropriate costs model for judicial review is qualified one way costs shifting (QOCS).

iv. Summary of key points.

Fixed costs recovery review (the Jackson Review) – PLP’s submissions